Brotherhood
Brotherhood
See Brethren, Fellowship.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
brotherhood
The Christian concept rates all men, of every race and nation and type, as possessed of the same human nature and essential worth and dignity. God creates the soul of each man and infuses it into a body; this implies a special divine choice and a special value in the beginning of natural life. Further, God has called every man to a supernatural destiny, dependent on the probationary period of life on earth, which consists in the perfect union of mind and will with the Divine Essence for all eternity, which is Heaven. As the necessary means to secure this salvation of men, God became incarnate, suffered, and died , and instituted His Church and His sacramental system. These divine acts, of infinite value, are directly related to each individual man, and give to each individual man an eternal value and worth. Since each man is so constituted, it follows that each man must live and act with due reference to these facts, both in his purely individual acts and in acts which involve others. Social life reveals differences of race, culture, nationality, and temperament, which lead to divisions and separations; but these are accidental and superficial as compared with the basic equality of all in the divine plan. To emphasize these differences to such an extent as to lose sight of the essential human dignity of any individual, race, or class, is an offense against human nature, and a violation of justice or charity or both. The notion of the brotherhood of men, thus worked out by Christian theology, is supported by natural reasonings, such as those of the humanitarian philosophy. However these natural arguments, appealing only to general notions of sympathy, are apt to be countered by self-interest, and by conflicting arguments supporting claims of nationalism, race, and special culture.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Brotherhood
The origin of fraternities in the Christian Church and world, whether clerical, lay, or mixed, is far from being satisfactorily ascertained. The formation of such associations was in direct opposition to the very impulse which produced monachism itself, and sent the solitary, as a “hermit,” into the wilderness. Yet such fraternities were practically in existence in the Egyptian laurae, when Serapion could rule over a thousand monks; they received their first written constitution from St. Basil (326-379). Muratori was the first to point out the Parabolani (q.v.) as a sort of religious fraternity, in opposition to various writers quoted by him, who had held that such fraternities date only from the 9th or even the 13th centuries. Muratori also suggests that the lecticarii or decani, who are mentioned in the laws of Justinian (43 and 59 Novella) as fulfilling certain functions at funerals, must have been a kind of religious fraternity. On the other hand, the old sodalitas appears to have become more and more discredited, since the 18th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) requires the cutting off of all clerics or monks forming “conspiracies and sodalities.”
In the 8th century we find a disposition on the part of the Church to confine the idea of fraternity to clerical and monastic use. In the Dialogue by Question and Answer on Church Government of archbishop Egbert of York (middle of the century), the terms frater and soror will be found applied both to clerics and monks or nuns, but never apparently to laymen. There is at the same time ground for surmising that the term “fraternity,” which in the 12th and 13th centuries is used ordinarily as a synonym for “guild,” was already current in the 8th or 9th to designate these bodies, the organization of which Dr. Brentano holds to have been complete among the Anglo-Saxons in the 8th century, and the bulk of which were of lay constitution, though usually of a more or less religious character. The connection between the two words is established in a somewhat singular manner. A Council of Nantes of very uncertain date, which has been placed by some as early as 658, by others as late as 800, has a canon which is repeated almost in the same terms in a capitulary of archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, of the year 852 or 858. But where the canon speaks of “those gatherings or confraternities which are termed consortia,” the archbishop has “gatherings which are commonly called guilds or confraternities.”
But the term “guild” itself was already in use to designate fraternities for mutual help before the days of Hincmar. We meet with it in a capitulary of Charlemagne’s of the year 779, which bears “As touching the oaths mutually sworn by a guild, that no one presume to do so.” It occurs in two other places in the capitularies. It is thus clear that the guilds of the latter half of the 8th century existed for purposes exactly the same as those which they fulfilled several centuries later. So far indeed as they were usually sanctioned by oath, they were obviously forbidden by the capitulary above quoted, as well as by several others against “conjurations” and conspiracies; the last (the Thionville Capitulary of 805) of a peculiarly ferocious character. The subject of religious or quasi-religious brotherhoods or fraternities in the early Church (apart from monastic ones). has been but imperfectly investigated as yet. Specific bodies are found apparently answering to the character, attached to particular churches, during the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. In the West, however, we seem first to discern them under the Teutonic shape of the guild, which in its freer forms was palpably the object of great jealousy, to the political and spiritual despots of the Carlovingian aera.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Brotherhood
BROTHERHOOD.The word () does not occur at all in the Gospels, and is found only twice in the NT (1Pe 2:17; 1Pe 5:9). The idea, however, is common and of very great importance.
1. The natural brotherhood of man is assumed rather than asserted. It probably underlies Christs argument about the Sabbath (Mar 2:27 and parallels), and also such language as is found in Luk 15:11-32; Luk 16:25. This is the more likely in view of such OT passages as Gen 1:26-28; Gen 9:5-7, Job 31:13-15, and Mal 2:10 (which regard it as a corollary of our creation by the one God and Father), and Lev 19:18; Lev 19:34 (which not only commands love of neighbour, but also explicitly enjoins like love for the stranger). Hillel and other Rabbis gave this law the broadest interpretation, and Philo declares that man must love the whole world as well as God (see Kohler, Jewish Encyc. art. Brotherly Love, and Montefiore in the JQR [Note: QR Jewish Quarterly Review.] , April 1895). This, however, does not represent the dominant feeling among the Jews in our Lords time. They narrowed the term neighbour, as His language in Mat 5:44 plainly implies. It was the scribes suggestion of this narrow view that drew from Jesus the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the term neighbour is made the equivalent of brother-man (Luk 10:22 ff.).
Into this brotherhood Christ entered when He became flesh. That at least is implied in the title Son of Man which He so frequently applies to Himself. He was the seed of the woman. The Son of Mary, of David, of Abraham, was also Son of Adam (Luk 3:38) and one of the race.
Yet of natural brotherhood the NT has surprisingly little to say. Very little importance is attached to it. No hopes are built on it. The reason, doubtless, is that it had been destroyed by sina melancholy fact visible in the threshold tragedy of Cain and Abel. Such is St. Pauls summary of OT teaching (Rom 3:9-18). So Jesus found it when He was in the world. Men were dead to brotherhood as to all else that was wholly good (Joh 6:53, cf. Eph 2:1). For thirty years He moved among men with a true Brothers heart, but met no equal response, even among those peculiarly His own (Joh 1:10-11). Of the peoples there was no man with him (Isa 63:3). He was sorrowfully alone (Isa 53:3), standing among sinful men like one unharmed temple amid a citys ruins.
2. The new brotherhood.Under these circumstances nothing short of a new beginning would serve. Anything less radical must fail. A new creation is necessary (Gal 6:15). This Jesus states explicitly. Men must be born again (Joh 3:5; cf. Eph 2:5). They must be redeemed from sin and given a new life. This was His appointed mission (Mat 1:22, Joh 10:10). To that work He formally dedicated Himself in His baptism, which also symbolized the means by which the redemption should be effected, namely, His own death (with Mat 3:15, cf. Mat 20:28; Mat 26:28 and Rom 3:24-26, 1Co 15:3, Eph 1:7; 1Pe 1:18-19, Rev 1:5). Tempted to swerve from it, He held to that stern, slow path. Meantime He begins to gather about Him a band of brothers on the new basis. They are such as believe or receive Him. In faith they follow Him and forsake all else (Mar 1:18; Mar 1:20; Mar 10:28, Luk 14:33). That it is no mere external following is manifest. A vital union is established between them and Him, the significance of which is indicated by the figure of the vine and the branches (Joh 15:1-8). The new birth is effected (Joh 1:12; Joh 1:15), the new life received (Joh 6:57; Joh 10:27-28), and their sins graciously forgiven (Mar 2:5-11, Luk 7:47-48; cf. Col 1:14). Thus they become partakers of the Divine nature (2Pe 1:4), children or sons of God , , 1Jn 3:16, Rom 8:14; Rom 8:16; Rom 8:21, Gal 3:26; Gal 4:7), endowed with a deathless life (Gal 3:26, Joh 10:28), and Christ becomes the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29). Elsewhere the change is called a new creation (2Co 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 2:10), of which Christ is the beginning (Rev 3:14, Col 1:18).
It is this profound experience which underlies and accounts for the remarkable statements of Joh 1:35-51. St. Peters new name is a sign of it (Joh 1:42); the Israelite indeed in whom is no guile is a condensed description of the new man (Joh 1:47; cf. Psa 32:2, the first half of which is the germ of Rom 3:21 to Rom 5:21, and the second of Rom 6:1 to Rom 8:39). These men are nearer to Jesus now than any other persons. Hence the appropriateness of the strong language of this early record in the most spiritual of the four Gospels. St. John had learned meantime the potency of the faith that began so simply, and in the light of that recalls those wonderful early utterances and the steady progress of their faith from strength to strength.
Equally appropriate is the Cana incident which immediately follows (Joh 2:1-11). There Jesus breaks with the old order in the words, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Addressed as they were to her who represented it in its fondest tie, they show the break to be of the most absolute sort. That is the negative side, the turning from the old; the positive, the turning to the new, is indicated by the place assigned to the disciples in the record. They are identified with Him as others are not, and especially in a growing faith, to which otherseven His mother and His brethrenare as yet strangers. What was there taught in the veiled language of sign is taught plainly and explicitly in Mat 12:46-50 and Mar 3:31-35. How far Mary and His brothers were from understanding Him, how wide the gulf was that separated Him from them, is shown by the fact recorded in Mar 3:21 that they regarded Him as out of His mind. The disciples, on the other hand, are seated about Him drinking in His sayings. Them He declares to be His mother and His brethren (Mat 12:49). And looking upon the multitude also sitting around and listening to His words, He generalizes the teaching and declares that Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother (Mar 3:32; Mar 3:35). Such constitute the new brotherhood.
(1) So the first characteristic of the new brethren is that they do the will of God. They are in right relation to Him. When men are not so, they cannot be rightly related to one another. To be bound together by the tie of brotherhood, they must first be bound by the filial tie to God, their Heavenly Father. Loving obedience is the test and evidence of that (1Jn 5:3, Joh 14:15-21).
It is worth noting that this is the first great law of the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 6, and summarized in Mat 6:33). Really the brotherhood and the Kingdom (in one sense of the term) are different aspects of the same thing. As to membership the two are coextensive. God is at once Father and King; the brethren are both subjects and children, fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God (Eph 2:19). Both ideas run through the Sermon on the Mount, which is Christs proclamation of the nature and principles of the Kingdom.
Doubtless the new brotherhood and the Church may be similarly equated. Their membership too should coincide. This is indicated not only by Christs solemn recall of Peters new name, and His assertion that His church should be built of such confessors as he (Mat 16:18), but also by the uniform practice in the Acts and Epistles of referring to the members of the churches as brethren.
(2) The second characteristic is that they love one another. Loving God as their Father they instinctively love also His other children, their brothers (1Th 4:9, 1Jn 4:20; 1Jn 5:1). This is Christs new commandment and the badge of discipleship (Joh 13:34 f.). Though an old command, it has been made new in experience by Christs death for them. And they in turn make it new afresh when they lay down their life for one another (1Jn 3:16; 1Jn 2:7-11). The love that makes the greatest sacrifice will make the lesser. In the OT the law of Israels brotherhood enjoined kindness, and definitely forbade such sins as contempt, extortion, oppression, etc. (Deu 22:1-4; Deu 23:7; Deu 23:19 f., Deu 24:7; Deu 24:14; Deu 25:3, and elsewhere). So in the NT special mention is made of charity (1Jn 3:17, Jam 2:15-16); hospitality (Heb 13:1, Rom 12:13); forgiveness (Col 3:13); truthfulness (Eph 4:25); mutual admonition (2Th 3:15); a humility that prefers others and renders even lowly service (Mat 18:1-18, Joh 13:12-17, Rom 12:10, Php 2:1-11, 1Pe 5:5 f.); practical sympathy with the persecuted (Heb 12:3), etc. Brotherly love insists on the essential equality of those who are of the same family. Natural affection exists among them (Rom 12:10 ). There can be no caste among them (Col 3:11); all selfish ambition and striving after pre-eminence must be eschewed, and the way of service chosen (Mat 20:20-28). Differences of gifts are recognized. But those who are one in Christ must regard them not as signs of inferiority and superiority, or grounds of pride and servility, but as means of mutual helpfulness, and as all necessary to the general well-being. Different gifts are different functions for the common good. For Christ and His brethren form a body, and each member is necessary to the perfect well-being of the rest. This is developed in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4.
The love the brethren bear each other is special. It is distinguished from that they feel toward those that are without (1Pe 2:17 and 2Pe 1:7). It is closer, more affectionate, complacent, satisfying. But they must love otherseven their bitterest enemies. So do they become like their Father in heaven (Mat 5:43-48; cf. St. Paul in Rom 9:1-5).
Christ calls them His brethren, and is not ashamed to do so (Heb 2:11). Still His position in the brotherhood is unique. He is one of them, yet He transcends them. He is Master and Lord (Joh 13:13 f.) as they are not nor should seek to be (Mat 23:8-10). For He is Son of God in a unique sense (, Joh 3:16; Joh 1:18, in which the reading is probably correct and explains the uniqueness). That truth He ever guards in the expressions He employs. Examples are seen in Mat 11:27 and frequently in the Fourth Gospel; in Mat 6:9, where the emphatic ye and the character of the prayer exclude Him from the our, and in Joh 20:17, where distinction, not identity, of relation is intended.
When the law of brotherhood is lived out in sincerity and truth, in justice and righteousness, in courage and faith, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, the solution of social problems will be hastened. These problems are not new. But they are seen to-day as never before. Conditions that once were accepted are accepted no longer as just or right or tolerable. And it is precisely because Christs ideas of brotherhood have grown clearer to mens minds that they feel the inequalities and injustices of the present order. That is the cause of the present discontent. Christ foresaw that such conflicts would be occasioned by His gospel (Mat 10:34-39). And nothing but the gospel that has caused the conflict can bring the proper issue. The cause must be the cure. Loyalty to the way of the Cross is the way of salvation. The age waits for Christians to embark in the honest, whole-hearted application of the great principle of brotherly love. It will not do to say with Wernle that Christs demands are impractical for any society. They are impractical for any society that lacks the martyr spirit. They are not impractical for the society that is charged with it. Christs way was the way of the Cross. That is the only way that leads to victory. Only in the spirit of Jesus can the worlds need be met, and its problems finally solved. For that the new brotherhood has been created. Only the fresh vision of the Fathers love, the surrender to the Saviours Cross, and the appropriation of the Spirits power will inspire, fit, and equip it for the holy task to which God summons.
Literature.Material will be found in most Commentaries, Lives of Christ, and books on Biblical Theology and the Teaching of Jesus. But in addition to the references already made, special attention may be called to Seeleys Ecce Homo; Renans Life of Jesus; Denneys art. Brotherly Love in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; Westcotts Social Aspects of Christianity; and especially Peabodys Jesus Christ and the Social Question; Mathews The Social Teaching of Jesus; and Tolstoi, passim.
J. H. Farmer.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Brotherhood
bruther-hood: The rare occurrence of the term (only Zec 11:14 and 1Pe 2:17) in contrast with the abundant use of brother, brethren, seems to indicate that the sense of the vital relation naturally called for the most concrete expression: the brethren. But in 1Pe 2:17 the abstract is used for the concrete. In the Old Testament the brotherhood of all Israelites was emphasized; but in the New Testament the brotherhood in Christ is a relation so much deeper and stronger as to eclipse the other. See also BROTHER; BRETHREN.